All Americans are bound by the Constitution

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Aazadan

The document was written by people for the people. The document has not failed, the people have. We gave all the power to 1% of the population, willingly. The rest of us have to work, send our children to fight their wars to keep it all going for them.

This a brilliant reply. Thank you for saving me the trouble of having to answer Aazadan. Abraham Lincoln would whole-heartedly agree with you: "We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

This thread is full of malarkey...

ATS any any privately owned forum does maintain the right, mind you THE RIGHT to silence and ban users at will.

All rights are derived from property. This forum is hosted on someone else's property. This is not public but a private forum.

Do you think you have the right to trespass on someone's lawn and they can't silence you by removing you from their land? Of course not.

He who maintains ownership is the SOLE person who maintains the rights.

You are confused with the privilege of free speech. The owners of a private forum grant you the privilege to use it. You have absolutely no right to use something you don't own!

Do I have the right to use your bicycle whenever I want? NO! It's yours! Only you maintain the rights to it!

Common sense dictates this. This isn't a revolutionary concept, it's the basic foundation of law in the U.S.

a reply to: SovereignZuul

All rights are derived from property. This forum is hosted on someone else's property. This is not public but a private forum.

In case you missed the memo (aka, the Declaration of Independence), Thomas Jefferson replaced "property" with "happiness."

Do I have the right to use your bicycle whenever I want? NO! It's yours! Only you maintain the rights to it!

But do you have the right to buy your own bicycle? In other words, is there opportunity for you to do so?

All rights are derived from property. This forum is hosted on someone else's property. This is not public but a private forum.

And now you are building my case for me. All the government has to do is continue privatizing itself, and bam, no more rights.

All rights are derived from property. This forum is hosted on someone else's property. This is not public but a private forum.

Alright. Then, where is there a public forum where I can be free to express myself wherever I want? Do you see the problem? If this website really wants to suppress my First Amendment rights, then there needs to be an "equal but separate" alternative where my rights will not be suppressed.

Now, I don't mind the website not wanting it to become a cesspool of "hey, I did this drug," and yadda-yadda, but there really isn't no reason that this website cannot make a separate Forum restricting such discussion to that forum.

In any event, the right to property is not "the basic foundation of law in the U.S." It is the basic foundation of capitalism. Don't confuse the two, buddy.

Finally, We the People own this country and Our Constitution, and I say, We the People take it back. I have used this quote several times already, and I will use it yet again: "We the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Aazadan

The document was written by people for the people. The document has not failed, the people have. We gave all the power to 1% of the population, willingly. The rest of us have to work, send our children to fight their wars to keep it all going for them.

The document works as designed. It was designed too narrowly.

originally posted by: Not Authorized
a reply to: Aazadan

Are the servers located in the United States? Do they have to respond to legal requests if the paperwork is all in order? Then yes, they are. Article 6 is supreme. No exceptions.

You agree to limit your rights here willfully, per terms and conditions. That is why you must agree. It is contract law.

Learn how the law is supposed to be operating, not how the oligarchy wants you to believe how it runs.

You don't agree to limit your rights here. You have no first amendment rights here because it's private property. They can censor anything you say, they can and do collect your documents, they can promote any religion they wish.

The constitution does not apply to actions between individuals and corporations, only between individuals and the state. My entire argument was that this is why the constitution is flawed. We actually do need a set of laws to outline interactions between individuals and corporations. Contract law is not equipped to handle it, because in contract law whatever is agreed to is deemed fair. That only works when both sides have equal bargaining power, such a situation does not currently exist.

I'm really confused by the replies to this thread. I can only guess that folks simply cannot quite follow what the OP was saying.

Who wrote the Constitution is not the point of the thread. The OP is stating that the Natural Human RIGHT to express oneself was indeed codified in the governing document of the US (their utter failure was not defining the "self evident" truths of Natural Human Rights). The OP is saying we can all agree on that notion.

What is being put forth is the idea that if you cannot support that idea in your own world, business or family, then you CANNOT expect the governing system to support it. Since everyone in the country demands others shut the hell up when feelings are hurt the government simply reflects that draconian response to speech and works as hard as it can to please the cry babies who fear the words of others.

The OP makes a valid point. Consider the laws are written for you and you alone. In fact every law that works to silence anyone or anything is written FOR YOU PERSONALLY! Insert you name on every law that works to curb your expression because the men in the backrooms are writing those laws with you solely in mind and no one else - they are not for the other guy but for you.

As for whether a business has the "right" to fire a person if the use the words "fatty fat fat fat" toward another, one needs to realize the reason we have gone down this road where people have become 100 percent reliant on the government to legislate everything we can do and say. We are no longer a moral people guided by the "self evident" truth, we are a people who DEMAND that politicians tell us how to act, how to think and what to say. We are no longer the person who laughs at the child that calls us fat, we are now a people that demand the government kill that child when I choose to get my feelings hurt by his utterances.

We have given all of our power to the weak, the tourette syndrome person who calls a person and ugly pig dictates the law on speech, because feelings are so so important that the person who utters these "hateful" words must die. We want anyone who calls a person "black" to go to jail because it is hurtful to use that language. We want anyone who says they don't like redheads to spend 1000 hours of community service to pay for their crime. Each time a person whines about how hurt the are by words the give the gleeful government the power it needs to impose more draconian measures on speech.

That is what the OP says and I cannot see an argument against the notion at all unless people are so fearful of the words they really do want to live in a private government run cell which will protect them from all the bad words and the words that might lead them to a new way of existing - government controls the good and the bad word without prejudice.

Who is the moderator here? Why is my response to yamammasamonkey's reply to me removed?

She makes a hit-and-run post that contributes absolutely nothing to the OP besides rude, ad-hominem attacks, towards me personally (not the ideas I posted), sprinkled with some broad, unsupported declarations.

I could understand if both of our posts were removed, but why is hers allowed to remain, while my response to her is removed? Did she contribute anything intellectually to the OP, or to my response to the OP? If she's allowed to make a post attacking a fellow member, why is the recipient of such idiocy allowed to not respond and challenge it?

I would appreciate a public explanation as to the bias involved, as I certainly did not post anything more egregious than she did.

originally posted by: Bloomoon
Are you suggesting that perhaps they seen any member of the Tribal League of 6 Nations as being subordinate by race, yet superior to any other race? That is a bit of a stretch. I believe they honestly seen everyone as equal.If they didn't see everyone as equal, then they probably would call them names, insult their Great Law of Peace, and say something ignorant like... "We can do better than you." That didn't happen. The two documents are amazingly similar. There was a great deal of respect there....IMHO, your viewpoint is debunked!

I'm not sure I understand what you are suggesting here: You are saying that since the Founding Father's found some ideas that are similar in concept to how the Iroquois governed themselves, that this somehow proves that the Founding Fathers were fair and equal to everyone because they would've "called the Indians names" if they didn't see them as equals, therefore, the Founding Fathers must've 'seen everyone as equals'...???

The Indians were seen as equals? Women were seen as equals? What about blacks? Indentured Servants? Non-property owners? Were any of these people, who made up most of the population at the time, given fair participation in the political process? Did they enjoy any of the protections set forth in the Constitution? Were any of them afforded due process, due diligence, or "the pursuit of happiness"?

Furthermore, I never said anything about the FFs as being racist, anymore than a businessman makes decisions in the interest of preserving and controlling his own assets, as well as the aquisition of more assets, without being racist. Regardless of where or how someone may find inspiration, it says absolutely nothing as to the actual application of those ideals.

originally posted by: yamammasamonkey
You're so wrong on so many levels it makes me tired just thinking of drafting a counter argument. It's not worth it in the long run, because your dillusional, close minded, brainwashed view is likely so ingrained that you will never be able to free yourself from the mental prison your "educators" have locked you in. I'm sure you are happy, ignorance is bliss.
a reply to: pissy

originally posted by: yourmakerThis...isn't how ATS is supposed to be.

Personal attacks all over the place here. Respect the poster and attack his argument.

What you've done here is spit on that respect and tried to get at him personally.

Thank you.

Well, I'm sorry for airing this out publically, and I'm sure I'll be banned for this, however, I am not "allowed" to respond to the private message sent to me by "semperfortis", and thereby am offered no recourse except for this forum.

"Semperfortis" removed my comment, giving the explanation in his message to me: "We seek to promote discussion and debate in way that pushes the discussion in a positive way".

For the life of me, I cannot figure out how yamammasmonkey's post above adheres to this.

Given that what I originally wrote certainly may agitate people who are not open to ideologically questioning what they've been taught from birth, my only conclusion is that the moderator himself personally disagreed with what I had to say in my original response to the OP.

I can certainly assure whomever does read this before it's removed, I always try to conduct myself as if I was speaking face to face with someone, and if someone like yamammasmonkey want's to be rude, then I certainly feel like I deserve the right to respond, if only for the reason that I invested a considerable amount of time and thought in composing my post, and to have someone like yamammasmonkey come along with absolute childishness like he did is pretty damn rude.

If anything, this only bolsters the argument that I originally set forth, that while things may seem to apply equally to everyone simply because they are written down, whether that may be a TOS, or a Constitution, nothing could be further from the truth when you allow certain individuals the latitude to interpret those rules how they see fit.

a reply to: pissy


Since you are brand new to ATS may I suggest that you pick a couple of threads and read through them to get a sense of how things are done here. Perhaps choose a topic that you are less familiar with or you don't have a strong opinion about.

ATS is not like every other forum on the internet and the people who have been here for a while are invested in keeping it that way. A place where contentious topics can be discussed without the conversation turning into something you might find attached to a YouTube God v. Atheist video.

ATS is not perfect, but it is the best place for discussing difficult subjects.

a reply to: iosolomon

I guess that would leave out the Kenyan . . . not being an American and all . . . at least not a legal one.

Trouble is . . . some are powerful enough to apply laws very selectively toward their genocidal goals.

a reply to: iosolomon


Yup. It must apply to all people, the "Kohms" as well as the "Yangs"...thet speech in Star Trek, The Omega Glory was one of the best ever written by Roddenberry and delivered by Shatner...
As for the "Rich White Guy" theory...who else at the time had the Educations capable of crafting such a work of art, and the wherewithall to finance a war to implement it ?

a reply to: Greywolf13A

Bear in mind...NO taxpayer funded public schools existed at the time ALL educations were privately funded.

a reply to: Greywolf13A

=uGO-SldLrNA

a reply to: Greywolf13A


www.youtube.com...